I recently came across this excellent interview with Chris Dunn on Coast to Coast AM:

I know you all know him (probably from AA & other shows) but I think this man is spot-on with his approach, while also being sufficiently 'careful'
with regards to findings of traditional Egyptologists. In a nutshell he says:
- the 'evidence' is out there, at Giza (and all around the world)
- the artifacts he presents have been created via advanced engineering & machine tools
- assuming an earlier civilization in Egypt can be a 'political issue' in some ways
- disassociating such artifacts from ancient egyptian culture is problematic
- Egyptologists need to prove what they claim: that these artifacts can be produced using copper chisels and hammers, but they couldn't do that up to
now regarding the most advanced artifacts we see

According to him, the only way to learn something about these artifacts and the technological level of the society that produced them is to closely
investigate every detail and the precision with which they have been engineered. The next step would be to think about the minimum requirements
to achieve such precision. Only then can we begin thinking about what kind of tools they used and make assumptions about the logistics and economical
aspects that enabled them to do what they did ...

P.S.: I know all this is not really 'new', but I think this is a good alternative way to go about and ask questions that (apparently) could not be
answered well enough by traditional Egyptology

Humans are amazing , something being very difficult has never stopped us.

If Humans are THAT amazing, why can't we build these things, bigger, more complex, and faster now...and at LEAST 4500 years later?

Surely, if we attribute this to ancient humanity as we understand them (taught about them)..and are also taught that technolgical acievement is a
linear process (bent pyramid - step pyramid - great pyramid..and ignoring the hundreds of other pyramids around the planet)..we should have the
technology available to build a replica of the great pyramid, but 20 X the original size, and built in about a single year using only a handful of
workers and machinery.

But we can't.

We can't even build a replica a 1/4 size of the orginal. Either Ancient humans were in possession of technologies and building techniques far
superior to ours and the theory of linear progression of technology is fundamentally incorrect...or there has to be another explaination, because as
it stands right now, humanity was more advanced 4000 - 5000 years ago, at least in construction methods (if we stick to modern dating theories) than
we are today.

Which itself, proves that at least 50% of the professional theories regarding Ancient Egypt (linear technological progression) is completely wrong.

If Humans are THAT amazing, why can't we build these things, bigger, more complex, and faster now...and at LEAST 4500 years later?

Because we are not prepared to spend 40 years at the cost of many many lives to build something like the pyramids. The cost alone would be impossible.
Back then almost no one was getting wages for the work.

Don't believe everything you hear on history channel documentaries about us not being capable of such feat's. They just say that to make things sound
more interesting.

Yes I agree if there really is archeology on the moon it probably belongs to us from some more enlightened era. It is also possible that these giants
spoken of in many ancient text might just be another type of humanoid natural to this planed that was later wiped out. Remember those hobbit 3ft
humans found in java but are now wiped out, there is no reason that these giants could not be natural earth born

Don't believe everything you hear on history channel documentaries about us not being capable of such feat's. They just say that to make things
sound more interesting.

But don't you think we should at least consider alternative explanations and ask some more questions before irrevocably subscribing to
existing hypotheses?

As for myself: I'm not willing to accept some of these (traditional) hypotheses without further proof from those who claim they know how things came
about. And until such proof is provided, I would never dare to exclude other perspectives from the equation ...

But don't you think we should at least consider alternative explanations and ask some more questions before irrevocably subscribing to existing
hypotheses?

No. This is ever the slightest hint of anything other than good old human hard work conducted over a very long period of time. There's no evidence of
ANY high tech or alternative tech. There is no evidence of anything that doesn't fit the period these structures were made in. No other worldly tools
, no unknown materials , nothing.

Just wishing there was another reason is not enough reason to jump to crazy made up ideas.

Originally posted by MysterX
If Humans are THAT amazing, why can't we build these things, bigger, more complex, and faster now...and at LEAST 4500 years later?

Well, according to your silly reasoning as Concorde was built 44 years ago, and stopped flying 10 years ago it must have been built by aliens as we
cannot do what it could today, nor are there any plans to do what it was capable of doing.....

We can't even build a replica a 1/4 size of the orginal.

Says who exactly?

Either Ancient humans were in possession of technologies and building techniques far superior to ours

In the case of Concorde that means 10 years ago....

or there has to be another explaination, because as it stands right now, humanity was more advanced 4000 - 5000 years ago, at least in
construction methods (if we stick to modern dating theories) than we are today.

Please could you provide a link to engineers claiming they couldn't achieve the same accuracy.

Not saying they're wrong, but I'm a Mathematician and see no reason why they couldn't be built with the maths they had at the time, in fact most of
their maths was far more advanced than that required to plan out these shapes. It'd take me an hour at most to plot one using their maths with
current tech, but a few days/weeks doing it all longhand. A long as the 'bricks' are the same size and 'instep' of one layer ontop of the other
remains constant, you have a pyramid.

My suspicion is they may have fallen foul to the false idea pyramids were built using Phi and Pi as references.

That's not to say that these aren't absolutely amazing examples buildings that should inspire awe though.

edit on 26-6-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

If you watch the video I posted you can listen to several engineers talking about the difficulty of building such a structure.

The cross section of the great pyramid is a 3 4 5 triangle and therefore Phi is incorporated in the design ie 5/3 = Phi

No. This is ever the slightest hint of anything other than good old human hard work conducted over a very long period of time. There's no evidence of
ANY high tech or alternative tech. There is no evidence of anything that doesn't fit the period these structures were made in. No other worldly tools
, no unknown materials, nothing.

Just wishing there was another reason is not enough reason to jump to crazy made up ideas.

Well, you seem to be convinced!

In that case I hope nothing new will ever come to light so that you can stick to your conclusions. I have to say, though: I'm glad that people
from other disciplines think it's worth taking a closer look and contribute with their expertise ...

P.S.: Also, I'm not sure whether Egyptologists are the best choice for interpreting the purpose of architectural designs & the results of using tools
on stonework

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.